If you have broadcast or major-cable network clients, the standard camera operators' day rate is about $600/day ($1,800/day with a broadcast HD package). Non-linear FCP/Avid editors make about $100/hour.

A conventional 2/3" HD broadcast package costs approximately $150,000-$200,000, including audio and lighting. A DSLR-based HD "video" package can cost as little as the price of the DSLR, plus a few lenses, fluid-head tripod ($1,000-$2,000), follow-focus rig ($600-$1,500), and a handheld rig ($500-$2500). Add a couple of DivaLites ($2,000), and audio ($2,000-$5,000), and you're good to go. If you go on the cheap (e.g., no fancy Lectrosonic wireless mics, etc.), you can put together a very capable DSLR-based video package, with everything above, for under $10K.

Hard facts I am a commercial stills photographer, I was asked by a long term client to do some video work for them. My choice was to say No, and lose the client, or invest in a pro video camera plus all the follow on equipment needed to shoot at a professional levels.

Point 1 When the word VIDEO is applied to buying equipment, it usually cost treble what stills equipment costs

Point 2 Time, most work is done on tripods normally with helpers { Thats Staff who need paying} sound and lighting teams

Point 3 Editing When you can say those immortal words "Thats a Rapp", the real work starts in the editing, Time Time Time

Point 4 Clients seem to think that editing is a five minute job and pay 5 minute rates

Commercially is hard work , you cannot get paid for the time you put into it

Poor return on investment of equipment, unless its very long term, however values of second -hand video gear is low, due to constant technology changing

I have the Tea Shirt

My advice is don't get involved. not if its a commercial proposition and you intend to make a living from it

Although not a commercial video, I did recently shoot my first film ever for the Salem Film Festival's 72 Hour Challenge. We won Best In Show for the Amateur (ages 25+) category. The film was shot entirely on my D7000. I had some issues with sound and the cleanup caused a few more issues. Other than that, and a few depth of field focus problems, I'm quite pleased with the results. If you'd like to check it out and offer constructive criticism, it would be appreciated. The film is called Places and is on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dm2HuJfRR4

I use d7000 for all my commercial shoots in India, New Delhi. This film was done with available light source except food footage which I did with 2 Umbrella lights 90 watts each. Lenses used 24-70 Sigma HSM 2.8, 18-55 VR & 18 -105 vr kit lens.

I bought the D7000 for use on a television series, and it's done a great job. I'm watching to see what Nikon does with the next body featuring video. Since I can use Nikon glass on a Canon body, that's an option if Nikon doesn't ramp up the video significantly. I've been shooting Nikon professionally since 1971.

If video was the primary mission, the 7D might get the nod, or the 5DmkII as it's a great still cam too. Since still is the mission, and I am waiting the replacements for the D300s and the D700, the D7000 gets the nod in the interim.

patrickdowns said:
I am glad to read here that @studio460 has the D7000, when surely if the 7D or 5DmkII were that superior, he would have gone that route, and surely he will be doing video FAR superior in quality by design than I ever will or could. That seems to be an endorsement of the D7000 for all the video I might need, and the D400 and D800 or whatever they will be will no doubt be even better.

I think studio's choice might have been more about the legacy Nikon lenses that he owns and you mention that you do, too. I don't think he'd argue that Nikon has Canon beaten in the video department. Have fun with your D7000 and welcome to the forum. I'm sure you'll love it.

Wow! What a phenomenal thread...props to all, esp to @studio460 for his technical explanations. I don't know what I don't know, but you've convinced me that I don't want to do DSLR or any video at the level required to be commercially viable. Too much gear and learning curve!

I am just getting a D7000 and some lenses, primarily for stills. I used Nikon for many years in the newspaper business, we switched to Canon (@ LA Times) which upset me, but I still have some great prime Nikkor glass left over. AI-S lenses like 35/1.4 and 24/f2, 20/3.5, macro, 105/2.5 etc., and I am glad I kept them...will be fun to play with for video (and for stills too, and when I get an FX body... hurry up with the D800 and D400, Nikon!).

I have agonized over Canon vs Nikon for a few weeks, as I know the 5D MkII is great for still and video both, better than the D7000 it seems according to what I read here. But then, I come back to the fact that I don't plan to do anything more than "play" with video on the dSLR. Shooting wildlife or sports, shooting some moving pitchers. Kid, macro etc. Fun stuff. At the LA Times, their videographers aren't using DSLR for their news video...they are using $10k video cameras by Sony or Canon. The shallow DoF that people love for feature work doesn't work too well for much of the docu stuff they shoot. And when you are a one man band, pretending to shoot feature work or wide-open, and do sound, lighting etc...good luck with that!

I am glad to read here that @studio460 has the D7000, when surely if the 7D or 5DmkII were that superior, he would have gone that route, and surely he will be doing video FAR superior in quality by design than I ever will or could. That seems to be an endorsement of the D7000 for all the video I might need, and the D400 and D800 or whatever they will be will no doubt be even better.

For me, I prefer the Nikon glass, and have the legacy prime lenses I want to use. In addition, the pro friends I have who have switched back from Canon to Nikon are SO happy they did. So I think I have made the right choice on the D7000 (for now) and coming back to Nikon. I am glad Samy's Camera is sold out of all their Canon 7D and 5D bodies today when finalizing my order, or I might have waffled and made a snap decision I would regret, and gone over to Canon. not that they don't make great stuff, but stills are what I do and plan to prioritize on in the future, and their flash lighting system and performance is better, and the glass is so good. Numerous friends told me "If I didn't have so much tied up in Canon, I'd switch...)

To TheCaz and those interested in DSLR video at "commercial" videos: Sounds like you have a few side trips that may net you some acceptable footage with some video capable camera. I have not made much use of my DSLR video from say a kayak. Even my most stable kayak (A Necky Eskia) is somewhat on the tipsy side. But every time I am in a kayak and in Alaska, I wish for my sea touring kayaks with the rudders, etc. What I have found in Alaska rental kayaks is frankly quite awful. So that would all limit the level of video I could do from a kayak in Alaska. In my experience the rolling shutter DSLRs need a set up where you can prefocus with a few still then switch to auto focus video and then try to keep the camera stable during the AVI clip image capture. I would say that I have never seen a big video camera used in a small boat other than a fairly large outboard-Jet Boat that is.....in Alaska. The jet boats are sometimes stable enough to do pro video. You could see that in the movie RedGold (Felt Soul Media). That movie had pro level video done under very challenging conditions and looks very good (HD and sharp). In my experience in Alaska the smaller tour boats might get you close enough to Orcas to photograph say on 300mm. But you'd better be ready to shoot very quickly if an Orca pod rolls by. I would sure want to shoot some stills before starting any video. For Brown Bears along shore the place you are going is only so so. It does sound like a great adventure! Keep us posted! But for sure get whatever you are using for video dialed in BEFORE the cruise and the side excursions. Looks like you are going with the GH2 and I do not have any experience with that camera. But I do have D90 videos that are quite good from Alaska and the D7000 is coming with me also this year.

Thanks Davey. I agree with you about the cruises in general because you're not in the field long enough. I am going on a couple of excursions that are promising though. One is an 8-hour trip to the Tracy Arm fjord that should give me some good opps, especially of the Sawyer glacier, small icebergs, and sea mammals (orcas if lucky). We also might have some luck with bears along the shore. In Sitka, I'm also going on a shorter excursion chasing sea mammals, particularly whales and otters, which should be interesting. In Ketchikan, we going on a flight that lands for a 1/2 hour, and hopefully I'll get some good eagle opps.

But the problem, as I'm analyzing it, is that today's dSLRs aren't really video-ready except in controlled environments. The only camera I can find that seems to be seamless is Panasonic's recently-announced mirrorless, the GH2, which is getting great reviews. It is light (900g with a 14 to 140mm lens that is an FX equivalent of 28-280), and has autofocus that works for both stills and video, so I should be able to shoot those eagles as they soar. Heck, it also has a 100-300mm lens that weighs 530g, is equivalent to 200-600mm, and also autofocuses for both stills and video. If it works as the reviews say, it's the first model out of several in the pipeline that will be game changers. Since I put in an order, we'll see how it works in the field unless Nikon's EVIL comes out soon and is available in time for me to switch orders (not likely, unfortunately).

Note to TheCaz: I have shot extensively in Alaska. But to also address your question about video in DSLR with the 70-300VR for wildlife. Cruise Alaska type tours usually do not put you in the field quite enough to use DSLR video in my experience. The best Alaska related videos I have were out in the field (not a cruise) and generally were using 12-24 Nikkor or 18-200VR Nikkor at wider field of view than a 70-300VR will handle. One of my best DSLR videos though was using a Nikon DSLR with the 70-300VR but the subject was not moving towards me or away. So this can be done very nicely with Nikon DSLR, my pick right now would be the D7000 with that lens for wildlife video. But if it is an eagle and he is flying towards you or away.....then the auto focus during the video may have some jello effect and I find it is important to get the approximate focus BEFORE you engage the video which I usually do with a series of still frames, then switch to video, that way you have not lost all on a poor video (you at least have some sharp stills). I also find that ISO 640 to 800 to increase depth of field helps with the focus problems. Alaska is a great place for scenery and wildlife photos! I have images of Orca (aka killer Whales) feeding on Silver Salmon taken at Kenai Fjiords National Park
which is very impressive and no one else on the boat was able to get the shots while the Orcas were close. So there is a need to be able to get set up very quickly I believe. Not a good place to be switching lens! So the DSLRs can do professional quality video. Especially in places that quick set up is required. I have been trying to video Ruffed Grouse in flight though and I to date have been unsuccessful.

I think we can wrap this guy up at this point. It's been really useful, and has led to a raft of research on quick shooting video techniques. The bottom line though is that video really isn't a seamless alternative in dSLRs yet, and while it's much closer to seamless in today's mirrorless cameras, they just aren't up to snuff yet shooting stills.

All, however, is not lost. If you're going to use video as an addition to stills for apps like travel photography, there are several low cost devices that can help you without lugging around a tripod, which I don't use for my general work (too kludgy to carry around when I'm walking several miles). There are several hoodloupes that you can put on in seconds, so you can catch all but the fastest developing action. There are also some neat shoulder harnesses and one wrist support device that should let you do passable handheld work for short periods. If you were doing a 10 minute shot, you'd probably want a tripod, but I'm anticipating that most of my sequences will typically be from 10 seconds to a minute or two.

Anyway, my next major project on yellowstonecaz.com will be a cruise to the inland passage to Alaska this summer, so I'll make sure to check in and show the results. I'm excited because I think I'm going to be a part of a new form of journalism that will allow us to tell richer stories.

"And if you don't need camera movement at all (say if you're shooting a nesting bird or some such thing), a still tripod may be all you need."

bhoveyga is right, the story might not need a pan or till. It certainly doesn't need a zoom. Rock solid images could easily be enough.

I would likely suggest current gear, too, rather than going with mirrorless right away. The D7K's video pixel thing is fixed, and while the video is jello-y, it will do, and there are software fixes for the jello.

And for the video accessories, there are cheaper options if you want to go that direction. I would urge caution. A few clips to add value to what one is doing makes a lot of sense.

TheCaz said:
Video capability in a dSLR doesn't really open up major changes in the photography world because of all the stuff needed to shoot high quality video, i.e. hoodloupes, fluid tripods, lighting, etc. By the time you've set all that stuff up, you very well may have missed the video sequence you wanted to shoot in the first place. My interest is less in becoming a videographer (planning to do a story in video) and more in having a seamless ability to capture short video sequences as they're happening. Basically, I'd be a photographer who could turn on a dime to capture video sequences -- probably short ones in the 1 to 5 minute range. If I need to be lugging a hoodloupe alone that's ok if it can be put on in a few seconds, but lugging around that tripod doesn't cut it, and there's occasions where you'd need to shoot without even a hoodloupe because events happened so quickly. You just need to turn on the video and shoot.

For the sort of shooting you are talking about in your second scenario, "turn on a dime to capture video sequences," don't underestimate the value of your current still gear... while it's true that a fluid head is indispensable for doing smooth pans and tilts, you can still get a lot of mileage using a regular tripod (or even monopod) to steady your video shots. I've had very good luck using a ball head, adjusting the friction carefully to allow smooth movement with reasonably nice starts and stops... as long as you stay away from really long focal lengths, the shots can look quite good. And if you don't need camera movement at all (say if you're shooting a nesting bird or some such thing), a still tripod may be all you need.

Hey, we're wrapping up and there's one more avenue to explore. I understand how a video capability opens up new vistas, but right now the more interesting one is really in the existing video market to use lower cost dSLR cameras to lower production costs. It's really a change for videographers, not photographers (or for photographers to move into videography).

Video capability in a dSLR doesn't really open up major changes in the photography world because of all the stuff needed to shoot high quality video, i.e. hoodloupes, fluid tripods, lighting, etc. By the time you've set all that stuff up, you very well may have missed the video sequence you wanted to shoot in the first place. My interest is less in becoming a videographer (planning to do a story in video) and more in having a seamless ability to capture short video sequences as they're happening. Basically, I'd be a photographer who could turn on a dime to capture video sequences -- probably short ones in the 1 to 5 minute range. If I need to be lugging a hoodloupe alone that's ok if it can be put on in a few seconds, but lugging around that tripod doesn't cut it, and there's occasions where you'd need to shoot without even a hoodloupe because events happened so quickly. You just need to turn on the video and shoot.

But what about the rumored new mirrorless from Nikon? Would a "pro" level, very light mirrorless camera with an electronic viewfinder change that equation by being so light, it would be easy to keep relatively steady for the fairly short period you might need it. Could such a device allow an almost seamless transition from still shooting to video? Of course, it would have to be good to shoot as a still camera. Any comments?